An Interesting Situation (Or: That Damned Liberal Media!)

All I'm saying is, you're making assumptions about something you read about from one source - a source that you don't know the reputablity of, a situation that you don't know the details of and you're making a very determined judgment based on that. While there seems to be support for the stance you're taking, it's not the only possible scenario. Questioning the validity of things that you read, see, and/or hear about is necessary, and even then the conclusions that you draw from the information presented is generally not the only possible interpretation of events. No matter how informed and justified you feel, there is virtually nothing (or perhaps actually nothing) in the world that is truly right or truly wrong.
 
It isn't just him, you know. And media and hearsay doesn't even matter in my stance on this. And is there really any interpretation of a man having sex with a little boy that isn't horrifyingly wrong?
 
The fact is though, just because someone was convicted of something, that does NOT mean they did it. You are being naive if you think our justice system is flawless.
 
Then why didn't he plead not not guilty? In all seriousness, would ANYONE falsely admit to being a pedophile?
 
As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse from a friend of the family. I suffered for many years. The man got a slap on the wrist and continued to rape little girls till the day he was murdered by one of the fathers.

The father got life in prison and will never see the light of day.

I find the fact that we are talking about this rather disturbing and poor taste. While I am sure that this man deserves help just the same as anyone else, probably more so. But, the fact is there are very few convicted sex offenders (especially ones involving children) that are innocent.

It has been my vast experience that the system favors the molestors more than the children. I would love to think otherwise, but I know how flawed our justice system is in this reguard.
 
To me, the foundation of the justice system itself is flawed, not just certain aspects. Prosecutors will prosecute the innocent, Defenders will defend the guilty, quite often with knowledge that they are doing so. Then they use manipulative language to persuade a jury, to play off emotions. It becomes this strange force, a tug of war fought with words, in the absence of hard evidence. A jury calls upon disparate values--ranging from tightly subjective to broadly objective--to come up with a verdict.

A judge throws out a piece of evidence or testimony on some grounds, tells the jury to disregard it. If it's damning in their minds, do you think they do?

I currently offer no alternative approach, just my disdain for that whole institutional setup.
 
Whether our justice system worked, worked well, or completely failed isn't the core issue. Here we have a guy that was in need. He has a horrible past (allegedly or not, and as flawed as our courts can be, they take these offenses very seriously. He was CONVICTED. nuff said), but how did his past determine whether he received help or not? We have our government for a reason. It works. Agree with how well it does so or not, find me a better system. That being said, we must respect the system that WE choose to have. The system released him. He needed help. Someone helped him.

Did he deserve punishment? Not for me to decide. I don't know the details.
Did he receive it? Yes, from the system I agree to as a US citizen.
Should responsible adults watch their children around him? Absolutely.
Does he deserve additional punishment and ridicule? Not from me, the news station, or the people that helped him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom